You're not the first CAL pilot to refer to a lack of work rules in the CAL CBA and make it sound like you're bragging.

Overstaffed compared to CAL...easily rebutted w exhibits of various shots of the CAL reserve pool showing they're below min reserve all the time. Everyone seems overstaffed if your company believes in staffing below min requirements and them relying on a special batch of SM/VJM players.

Or...

747/777/767 = THREE or FOUR pilots

737 = TWO pilots

See how easy the math is??? (Hint: there will be a great breakdown of this starting May 11th.)

Besides, I would consider recent sUAL pilot recalls an additional sure sign of overstaffing considering sUAL's historic penchant for wasting money on overstaffing. :rolleyes:

Again, conjecture ... at MAD, fleet totals were within 10 airframes, and block hours flown were about the same, with CAL flying a higher percentage of international block hours. You did have more pilots, yes. Why? CAL MC thought that was due to overstaffing and less overall productivity.

I see a common theme amongst so many L-UAL folks .... UAL was bigger, better, and more bad ass than L-CAL ... all perception.

Not accurate. Airlines are staffed based on the type of flying they perform, not type of aircraft. A 777 that flies domestic routes will staff the same as an a320. A 757 that flies international flights with an iro will staff more pilots than a domestic 777.

Thank you for making the LUAL point. It is all about the type flying. LUAL was a "blue water" airline. Long haul over large streches of ocean to distant international locations. LCAL was primarily a "brown water" airline. Lots of short leg flying over small (er) expanses of ocean. Now before you go ape...yes LCAL did some true long haul. Just not to the level of LUAL. Thus the difference in staffing model. Couple that with LCAL's abysmal work rules and its easy math.

Did you read what you wrote before you hit enter ? If I was UAL counsel, I'd put you on the stand to repeat that again and again under oath. Your statement just strengthens the UAL argument. You should lay off the intoxicants before posting on the internet. They don't make you any smarter.

I'm not trying to further anyone's case, I'm simply pointing out that staffing follows the type of flying not the aircraft. Whether is be blue or brown water (whatever that means), if it requires additional pilots, it is regardless of the type of aircraft.

Staffing is more than a function of where a plane flies. Some metrics are: type of A/C, cost of pilots (contract & PBS), block hours, short and long-term business forecast and outside cost drivers like file and etc...

Btw...Howard is changing people in flight ops and you will see this announcement soon. Current staffing manager is on his way out.

Exactly. There is zero mystery why UAL's staffing requires an extra 1000 FOs for a similar fleet size.

Additionally, and based on the seniority lists at both airlines, widebody FO jobs must be desirable based on the seniority range of the FOs bidding it.